KB is a JEDEC thing where they invented a new shorthand prefix but re-used the Si prefix names of (kilo, mega, giga) while changing their meanings. They used capital K for kilo meaning 1024.
It's certainly one of the dumbest standards in existence and the fact Microsoft went with it and extended it is frustrating too.
At least for Toyota hybrids, the intuition is that the traditional ICE transmission system is replaced by what Toyota calls a "power split device" which continuously feeds and balances the electric and combustion power sources. This power split device uses a simpler gearing system (enabled by the high torque electric motors) and appears to be mechanically simpler and more reliable than traditional transmission systems (which probably wear out quicker than the engine in most ICEs).
One could also try out the new shell, literally codenamed "NewShell" 2 months ahead of Chicago/95's release in July 1995 with an update to NT 3.51. I've been meaning to try it out on my 486 rig.
I was profiling my code in the early nineties. Sure, I created primitive profiling tools on my own, but regardless.
While 486 AGI stalls were trivial, especially Pentium changed the game with its U and V pipes. You could no longer trivially eyeball what code is faster. Profiling was a must.
Heck, I even "profiled" my C64 routines in the eighties by changing the border color. You could clearly visually see how long your code takes to execute.
Ah now it's getting interesting :) So far I could reproduce the issue across several machines, also on new demo machines at the Apple booth of electronic discounters - so I don't think it's something about my configuration, but maybe it has something todo with how I'm using the trackpad (but I'm just sliding around with the right-hand pointer finger).
PS: the mystery might be solved => that buggy 'Custom Colour' UI item only shows up under specific circumstances, which for my specific usage pattern is 'obvious' - see my sister comment for details.
You need to have a color selected to begin with. This bug won't appear when switching from an image/dynamic to color. Only color selected -> close app -> reopen -> top right custom color. But even then, it's a MINOR thing, it doesn't stop me from selecting the right color at all...
Then folks should not complain about Google taking over the Web, when being part of the problem.
We managed to write cross platform games and applications across 8 and 16 bit home computers, but apparently that is too complicated to architect for Chrome as App adopters.
If it is to be Web stack, maybe learn how to support various browsers, instead of shipping one with the application.
I'm explaining how we got here, not justifying it.
> We managed to write cross platform games and applications across 8 and 16 bit home computers, but apparently that is too complicated to architect for Chrome as App adopters.
I'm not sure what you mean. For past 40 years making app run on Windows, Linux, Mac, and now iOS and Android has been a pain unless you wrote a webapp. Or shipped it in a container (Electron).
> If it is to be Web stack, maybe learn how to support various browsers, instead of shipping one with the application.
The issue as developer I experienced is justifying thi effort to management/money-holders.
- I spent last day optimizing our CSS for Firefox.
+ How many of our customers use Firefox?
- 1%
+ I'm going to file that as unpaid leave.
I just don't see a way around the monoculture in web browsers. Web developers don't bother testing it (works on my chromium), management doesn't want to bother with it (what is firefax?), and users just want website to work (how come Firex doesn't work as good as Chromum? Also why do I have 300 toolbars).
People always say that, but I don't see why would I want that. I like the idea of a browser engine in Rust, but I actually hope it might theoretically replace Chrome in 10 years, because it's better. Browser Engine is not an opinionated thing, or shouldn't be, anyway, why would I want any "alternatives" for that? I would rather have 1 engine and several good browsers, which are ultimately opinionated. Meanwhile, we do have more than 1 solid engine, and, uh, let;s say 0.8 good browsers.
Management of browser engines are absolutely opinionated. It's chock full of opinions. Decisions to not deprecate, decisions on which features to add, decisions on which features to refuse to add, all align around the incentives of the people who control the browser engine. For the last fifteen+ years the internet has primarily been driven forward by the needs of Apple and Google. There's no reason we have to continue like this, though.
Third party cookies are a great example of how chrome is actively hamstringing the entire internet with its dominance and control by a for-profit multinational.
> Browser Engine is not an opinionated thing, or shouldn't be, anyway, why would I want any "alternatives" for that? I would rather have 1 engine and several good browsers, which are ultimately opinionated.
Maybe you don’t see the irony in your comment, but that is exactly how you get opinionated engine. If there is only one party that controls the only engine, that is the definiton of ”opinionated”.
The invention of JavaScript, the rise and fall of ActiveX, and the death blow to Flash have all been opinions held by browser engine makers with dominant market positions. Even just Mozilla's pre-Chrome opinion of "our JavaScript engine is fast enough"
Google is no less opinionated with Chrome than Netscape, Microsoft and Apple have been. Google's opinions for the most parts align with our own, but that doesn't make it any less opinionated. And a Servo-monopoly would be better but still not great. Firefox started to stagnate after it took over from IE and vastly improved once Chrome appeared. Competition keeps things healthy
In my opinion, web browsers have become too popular and widespread. They're an important application on nearly every phone, laptop and desktop computer sold. The pressure to implement pervasive tracking is immense. I don't see a future where companies like Google, Microsoft and Apple all decide to drop this level of tracking and switch to an open-source product.
If another browser engine is good enough they might _fork_ it in order to add these kind of predatory features. Kind of like they already did with WebKit, now that I think about it. :-P
Before browsers was Windows. Microsoft had dominance, and they lost it.
I think browser based Apps took over in business because (1) Windows had shit security and shit App deployment, (2) Microsoft somehow forgot about developers developers developers.
Microsoft never forgot about locking developers in. As someone with trying to fulfill an organizational imperative to deliver cross-platform compatibility, they made my life as miserable as they possibly could.
> [Microsoft] made my life as miserable as they possibly could.
Exactly what I was saying. They had the goodwill of developers and then they burned it. Any developer through the 00's got burned multiple times - like the terrible Kiddie Server 2008. They are still burning us with Telemetry and unprofessional choices like advertising within the OS.
Before that they delivered mediocre but functional software. It worked. Now it doesn't work so well and is a masterclass in ugly graphic design and usability flaws.
It's also worth remembering that developing cross-platform between windows and literally anything else (excepting maybe the xbox? never owned one) is a nightmare. At best managed code will handle some of it, but Windows has many primitives that operate fundamentally differently than other desktop platforms. That alone will ensure I'll never touch that market except potentially as a secondary effort if a product takes off. (I also haven't had to use windows for anything since like 2009, which helps.)
My favorite example of this is to look at all the hoops Wine has to jump through to get decent performance for locks. Apparently many developers writing for Windows default to using a locking primitive that can wait for a list of locks (specified by handles), and those locks can be shared between processes. That primitive frequently gets used even for waiting on a single lock confined within a single process, but Wine usually still has to go through the incredibly expensive emulation to handle the general case.
The NTSYNC driver lands this month with Linux 6.14. I've been following the Wine MR the last few weeks eagerly waiting for it. Especially for Nvidia users this should help close some of the performance gap between Windows/Linux while the GPU drivers catch up.
> and those locks can be shared between processes. That primitive frequently gets used even for waiting on a single lock confined within a single process
And why not use a cheap primitive and if a lock is detected to be shared between multiple processes then upgrade it to the "expensive emulation"?
Money. US profits immensely from a stable world order. Peace and predictability is good for business.
Security guarantees also prevent nuclear proliferation. If Ukraine is defeated, the lesson many countries will learn is to have a strong nuclear deterrent.
That depends. It was true of WW2, but that had a unique set of circumstances. The US economy performed much better in the 90s, after the end of the Cold War, then it did in the 2000s with the invasions of Iraq/Afghan
There are no “arguments” being raised here. An argument would be something like “America relies on Ukraine as a key source of XYZ so it would be bad if Russia took it over.” Can you even tell me without looking how much U.S.-Ukraine trade there was before the war?
All these platitudes about “interests” and “soft power” seem to be predicated on an assumption that nobody is willing to articulate. Are we all expected to be Francis Fukuyama cultists here who take it as axiomatic that it’s in america’s interest to defend the borders of european countries? If that’s the argument, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Because I happen to think liberals have actually been right on that issue since the 1970s.
That's shockingly first-order. Even if there was zero bilateral US-Ukraine trade as of 2022 there's:
(a) trade with other EU partners that depend on Ukrainian food imports, gas transshipments, etc., and also on those trade partners. y'know, not being embroiled in trench war on their eastern front.
(b) trade with APAC partners that depends on EU partners that depends on (a). Even the most blatantly obvious ASML -> TSMC -> NVDA -> FAANGetc relationship transits that entire chain.
(c) the entire web of mutually beneficial international trade that benefits from (1) a more or less stable system of borders and laws and (2) again, participants in said system burning the minimum amount of blood and treasure trenches.
So what is it you really think? US involvement is unnecessary to maintain both its current position and the rest of the international system? Or that system unnecessary to maintain the state of the world today, and some alternative arrangement would be preferable? And we can smoothly transition to your preferred system with a belligerent Russia?
I'm being a bit unfair in the preceding paragraph, so I'll ask in all sincerity: what's your alternative policy in 2014? 2022? now? what outcomes do you predict under your policy? Who is (dis)advantaged?
The argument is that appeasing Putin in Donbas will work about as well as appeasing him in Crimea, creating successively more damaging conflicts in Europe until Article 5 gets tested and either NATO falls apart or we enter a hot war with Russia, and yeah, that's gonna cost money. You know that this is the point of the WWII comparison, which is why you have so studiously ignored the argument, trying to dodge it harder than neo dodging bullets in the first matrix.
Nobody in America knows what a Donbas or a Crimea is. These all sound like Russian places to me. The names of the places alone sound like they are none of America’s business.
You need studies to show that peace & stability support greater productivity and wealth?
Likely as it is that research can indeed confirm this, given the depth & tone of your inquiry, perhaps the most immediate convincing experiment would be best: find someone you can employ to harass and threaten your property and your person, occasionally to devastating effect, alongside another person who can study your productivity and wealth before and after.
Perhaps with further similar efforts here you can even persuade some people to volunteer for half of that project free of charge.
Your debate tactic reminds me of some variation of the gish gallop. I thought there was a word for it, but I can't find it.
You just ask question after question after question after question, with an extremely disproportionate amount of effort required between you and the person you are asking, and hope that the other side eventually gives up.
Edit: jakelazaroff pinned it down for me, "sealioning"
No. vardump specifically said that the money from stability justifies spending money to support Ukraine. That is only true if the latter is outweighed by the former.
We know the amount spent in support of Ukraine. The only missing piece of the puzzle is the specific dollar valuation of the deterrence value of further assistance to Ukraine to resist the Russian invasion.
If Ukraine regaining its pre-2022 (or pre-2014) borders is not worth a dollar value that exceeds the cost to achieve that outcome, then vardump's assertion of "money" as the reason is insufficient.
If “interests” means something concrete it shouldn’t take a lot of effort to explain what it means. To me it seems like the word is used to avoid acknowledging that “there’s no there, there.”
Enough that it makes Trump very upset whenever another country talks about using a reserve currency other than the dollar. Why would you need studies when you have the leader's own words?
reply